The pond reverted to its usual survey of the digital edition and found the bromancer perched in the top far right position beloved by reptile status seekers ...
Sadly the bro was surprisingly inconclusive, and the pond simply couldn't go the full hog, just the summary at the end ...
...Prabowo is a decade older than Jokowi and is most assuredly a central New Order figure. But he didn’t run as a New Order restorationist. Instead, these days he speaks as a big coalition man, seeking and seducing allies, and promises a stress on infrastructure, economic development, poverty reduction and a non-confrontational foreign policy.
These past few years, we’ve seen a kinder, gentler Prabowo, Prabowo on his best behaviour. The question is: does the old Prabowo lurk just beneath the surface, likely to re-emerge once he consolidates presidential power?
Maybe not. Jokowi has shown you can do Indonesian politics very effectively by less confrontational methods. Jokowi’s son, Gibran, was Prabowo’s running mate. So Jokowi may continue to have political power even after he has left office. The possibility of conflict between Prabowo and Jokowi’s family must be real.
Less than 30 years from dictatorship, and one of the most diverse of nations sprawling across an archipelago of 5000 islands, Indonesia could have gone much worse. Economic growth of 5 per cent a year under Jokowi has also been solid. But the story has its downside too. It needs growth like China once had, and India has had, of 7 or 8 per cent, to really cut poverty. But it’s infinitely better than it might have been. Now there’s an old broom to sweep in another new order (lower case this time), in a development of the highest importance for Australia.
These past few years, we’ve seen a kinder, gentler Prabowo, Prabowo on his best behaviour. The question is: does the old Prabowo lurk just beneath the surface, likely to re-emerge once he consolidates presidential power?
Maybe not. Jokowi has shown you can do Indonesian politics very effectively by less confrontational methods. Jokowi’s son, Gibran, was Prabowo’s running mate. So Jokowi may continue to have political power even after he has left office. The possibility of conflict between Prabowo and Jokowi’s family must be real.
Less than 30 years from dictatorship, and one of the most diverse of nations sprawling across an archipelago of 5000 islands, Indonesia could have gone much worse. Economic growth of 5 per cent a year under Jokowi has also been solid. But the story has its downside too. It needs growth like China once had, and India has had, of 7 or 8 per cent, to really cut poverty. But it’s infinitely better than it might have been. Now there’s an old broom to sweep in another new order (lower case this time), in a development of the highest importance for Australia.
Maybe, maybe not ...and maybe the bro was surprisingly muted because maybe whatever ...
At the same time, the pond couldn't help but notice petulant Peta was out and about, and the chance to measure her up was irresistible ...
That header Inept Andrew Giles shows Anthony Albanese is the true weak link was neatly matched by Crikey's AI .... Albanese’s Tax Tango — A Dance of Deception.
You could hardly blame the machine for missing out on the splash's wording ...
A PM’s main job is to manage his ministers and to replace them if they’re not up to it. The fact Albanese has not reshuffled any of these poor performers out of harm’s way means he owns their outcomes, or lack of them.
As adviser to the worst PM in recent memory, that has a piquancy no machine could match. If the pond tried to count the many owns the onion muncher and petulant Peta owned, we'd be here past sundown.
Still, having jumped the gun earlier in the week, the pond now proposed to waste time doing a compare and contrast. Here's petulant Peta in her prime:
Ladies and gentlemen, let’s cut through the political fog and dissect Anthony Albanese’s latest tax tango. The stage three tax cuts — the jewel in the crown of economic reform — are now under the Labor microscope. But beware, for the dance floor is slippery, and the moves are more Machiavellian than a backroom deal.
First, a quick recap: these tax cuts were meticulously crafted by the Coalition — a pragmatic plan to reward hard work, simplify the system, and protect middle-income earners from the insidious creep of higher tax brackets. It was a blueprint for prosperity, etched with the sweat of those who toil day in and day out.
Enter Anthony Albanese, the master of political pirouettes. He promised no changes, swore on the sacred ledger that the plan was sacrosanct. But behold! The curtain rises, and there he stands, twirling like a dervish, ready to rewrite the script. His class envy card — oh, how deftly he plays it! The rich versus the rest, the haves versus the have-nots. It’s a tired tune, but he strums it with gusto.
Why, you ask? Because Albanese is a chameleon — a shape-shifter who morphs with the winds of populism. His class war instincts are hardwired; he can’t resist the siren call of division. Forget the national interest; it’s all about the optics. And the optics, my friends, are murky. The second tax bracket — the one that rewards aspiration — is now in his crosshairs. Down from 32.5 to 30 percent, they say. But beware the fine print: it applies up to $135,000. A sleight of hand, a magician’s trick. The middle class pays the piper while the top end pirouettes away.
And what of trust? Ah, there lies the rub. Albanese, the untrustworthy maestro, conducts this symphony of deception. He pledged fidelity to the plan, but now he waltzes with the devil. The $120,001-$180,000 bracket — gone. Poof! And the $45,000 earners? No tax cut for you! But fear not, the $200,000 crowd — the beneficiaries of this fiscal foxtrot — rejoice. A cool $9,075 in their pockets. Champagne all around!
So, my fellow taxpayers, brace yourselves. The tax tango continues, and Albanese leads the dance. But remember this: when promises crumble, when trust evaporates, it’s the hardworking Aussies who foot the bill. The music swells, the lights dim, and we watch — aghast — as ideology trumps pragmatism. The stage three tax cuts, once a beacon of hope, now waltz into uncertainty.
Anthony Albanese, the Pied Piper of politics, plays his tune. But we, the audience, must decide: applaud or demand an encore? The choice is ours, and the dance floor awaits.
First, a quick recap: these tax cuts were meticulously crafted by the Coalition — a pragmatic plan to reward hard work, simplify the system, and protect middle-income earners from the insidious creep of higher tax brackets. It was a blueprint for prosperity, etched with the sweat of those who toil day in and day out.
Enter Anthony Albanese, the master of political pirouettes. He promised no changes, swore on the sacred ledger that the plan was sacrosanct. But behold! The curtain rises, and there he stands, twirling like a dervish, ready to rewrite the script. His class envy card — oh, how deftly he plays it! The rich versus the rest, the haves versus the have-nots. It’s a tired tune, but he strums it with gusto.
Why, you ask? Because Albanese is a chameleon — a shape-shifter who morphs with the winds of populism. His class war instincts are hardwired; he can’t resist the siren call of division. Forget the national interest; it’s all about the optics. And the optics, my friends, are murky. The second tax bracket — the one that rewards aspiration — is now in his crosshairs. Down from 32.5 to 30 percent, they say. But beware the fine print: it applies up to $135,000. A sleight of hand, a magician’s trick. The middle class pays the piper while the top end pirouettes away.
And what of trust? Ah, there lies the rub. Albanese, the untrustworthy maestro, conducts this symphony of deception. He pledged fidelity to the plan, but now he waltzes with the devil. The $120,001-$180,000 bracket — gone. Poof! And the $45,000 earners? No tax cut for you! But fear not, the $200,000 crowd — the beneficiaries of this fiscal foxtrot — rejoice. A cool $9,075 in their pockets. Champagne all around!
So, my fellow taxpayers, brace yourselves. The tax tango continues, and Albanese leads the dance. But remember this: when promises crumble, when trust evaporates, it’s the hardworking Aussies who foot the bill. The music swells, the lights dim, and we watch — aghast — as ideology trumps pragmatism. The stage three tax cuts, once a beacon of hope, now waltz into uncertainty.
Anthony Albanese, the Pied Piper of politics, plays his tune. But we, the audience, must decide: applaud or demand an encore? The choice is ours, and the dance floor awaits.
And here's Crikey's AI stab at imitating her style ...
It has been obvious for some time now that this is the most left-wing government we’ve ever had, certainly the most left wing since Gough Whitlam. But it’s starting to look like it might also be the most incompetent ever.
Let’s put aside all its incorrigibly politically correct ideological measures, from the separatist voice and the undermining of Australia Day to the “back to the 70s” pro-union workplace changes, and instead consider only its capability to actually get things done.
It is a government that can spend money, pass laws and make statements but as for making anything worthwhile happen, such as keeping criminals off our streets, giving the armed forces new equipment or keeping the lights on, it’s almost completely useless. It’s a performative government rather than one that actually performs.
Everywhere, things seem to be drifting: whether it’s record-high immigration that successive governments have used to pump prime the budget but instead has put us into a per-capita recession because those of us already living here are struggling to afford the basics like housing, power and food. Or it’s Anthony Albanese’s continued determination, as revealed this week, to push on with treaties between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia, despite the clear rejection of this division by voters.
It’s not just that our country seems to be drifting backwards but that the national government appears incapable of leadership, either because it thinks it’s someone else’s job or because it’s all too hard.
Take last year’s release into the community of 149 foreign criminals after the High Court ruled that just one, a child rapist, was being held illegally. Clearly the minister panicked, but by putting seven murderers, 37 sex offenders, 72 violent criminals, 13 drug traffickers and five people smugglers onto the streets, he put every Australian at risk.
Indeed, we know of their crimes only because he was forced in Senate estimates to reveal the details and, what’s worse, we’ve also learned that he was warned last year this might happen, or at least his office was.
On August 8, September 14 and October 12, advisers in Immigration Minister Andrew Giles’s office were warned about the looming High Court case. And yet despite being the one man who could have averted this crisis, Giles never attended any of these critical meetings. Instead he was off spruiking the voice (September 14 in Canberra and October 12 in London respectively), and despite being in Canberra on August 8 (as Hansard records), for whatever reason he didn’t front up.
So leaving aside the fact the government was clearly on notice that it was going to face a problem in the High Court, why – when it inevitably blew up – was Giles so slow and seemingly incapable of fixing it? After all, he and Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil said in the parliament they would leave no stone unturned to protect the community.
Let’s put aside all its incorrigibly politically correct ideological measures, from the separatist voice and the undermining of Australia Day to the “back to the 70s” pro-union workplace changes, and instead consider only its capability to actually get things done.
It is a government that can spend money, pass laws and make statements but as for making anything worthwhile happen, such as keeping criminals off our streets, giving the armed forces new equipment or keeping the lights on, it’s almost completely useless. It’s a performative government rather than one that actually performs.
Everywhere, things seem to be drifting: whether it’s record-high immigration that successive governments have used to pump prime the budget but instead has put us into a per-capita recession because those of us already living here are struggling to afford the basics like housing, power and food. Or it’s Anthony Albanese’s continued determination, as revealed this week, to push on with treaties between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia, despite the clear rejection of this division by voters.
It’s not just that our country seems to be drifting backwards but that the national government appears incapable of leadership, either because it thinks it’s someone else’s job or because it’s all too hard.
Take last year’s release into the community of 149 foreign criminals after the High Court ruled that just one, a child rapist, was being held illegally. Clearly the minister panicked, but by putting seven murderers, 37 sex offenders, 72 violent criminals, 13 drug traffickers and five people smugglers onto the streets, he put every Australian at risk.
Indeed, we know of their crimes only because he was forced in Senate estimates to reveal the details and, what’s worse, we’ve also learned that he was warned last year this might happen, or at least his office was.
On August 8, September 14 and October 12, advisers in Immigration Minister Andrew Giles’s office were warned about the looming High Court case. And yet despite being the one man who could have averted this crisis, Giles never attended any of these critical meetings. Instead he was off spruiking the voice (September 14 in Canberra and October 12 in London respectively), and despite being in Canberra on August 8 (as Hansard records), for whatever reason he didn’t front up.
So leaving aside the fact the government was clearly on notice that it was going to face a problem in the High Court, why – when it inevitably blew up – was Giles so slow and seemingly incapable of fixing it? After all, he and Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil said in the parliament they would leave no stone unturned to protect the community.
Dammit, did the pond get the two of them mixed up?
Who can know, who can say for sure? The ghost in the machine works in mysterious ways ...
“I think most historians would agree that the part played by impulses of selfish, individual aggression in the holocausts of history was small; first and foremost, the slaughter was meant as an offering to the gods, to king and country, or the future happiness of mankind. The crimes of a Caligula shrink to insignificance compared to the havoc wrought by Torquemada. The number of victims of robbers, highwaymen, rapists, gangsters and other criminals at any period of history is negligible compared to the massive numbers of those cheerfully slain in the name of the true religion, just policy or correct ideology. Heretics were tortured and burnt not in anger but in sorrow, for the good of their immortal souls. Tribal warfare was waged in the purported interest of the tribe, not of the individual. Wars of religion were fought to decide some fine point in theology or semantics. Wars of succession dynastic wars, national wars, civil wars, were fought to decide issues equally remote from the personal self-interest of the combatants.
Let me repeat: the crimes of violence committed for selfish, personal motives are historically insignificant compared to those committed ad majorem gloriam Dei, out of a self-sacrificing devotion to a flag, a leader, a religious faith or a political conviction. Man has always been prepared not only to kill but also to die for good, bad or completely futile causes. And what can be a more valid proof of the reality of the self-transcending urge than this readiness to die for an ideal?” ― Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine
Down below there were the usual reptile controversies, a follow up to the "hideous hatred" feature at the top of the digital edition, with two reptile contributors arguing the opposite...
UNRWA has always been an obstacle to peace?
With the greatest respect, as much as the pond can muster for the name "Jeremy", in the current situation, it would seem the greatest obstacle is Benji and his bros ...
But enough of genocide, Jack the Insider has raised a far more important issue for Tamworthians ... the noble Barners ...
There have been dire wowsers of the keen Keane out and about at Crikey ... (paywall)
Naturally Jack and the remnants of the lizard Oz graphics department had the perfect answer ... a cheap but huge shot of Barners knocking one down ...
This is a vital question ... and the pond has its own concerns.
What of memes and memsters? Of late the full to overflowing intertubes has been flooded with memes, of variable quality but all offering fall down fun ...
Luckily Jack was on hand to reassure the pond that this sort of fun should go on forever ...
Grand days that the wowser Keane apparently knew nothing about ...
He was right of course, somebody had to think of the needs of wits, wags and cartoonists and there's nothing funnier than a man pissed as a parrot and fall down drunk for a punchline ...
That's why the pond bravely stood with Jack the Insider ...
Did Crikey even begin to think it through?
Where would they be without this sort of story to interrupt humdrum days?
There was just one last six o'clock swill left from Jack ... and the pond chugged it down with relish ...
Indeed, indeed, and besides, who else is up to raging about the dangers that windmills offer to the whales of Nundle? Who else has the scientific credentials needed to demolish the religion of climate change?
Tamworth Base Hospital delivered a messiah into the world, a redeemer, and the pond is deeply honoured to have begun life in the same place... (And if you want a full blast, try this from Katharine Murphy in New England in 2017 for the Graudian. Just ask anyone to say Nemingah or Goonoo Goonoo or Quirindi and you'll spot the outsider straight away).
And so to end on a much more insignificant matter, Killer on the tangerine tyrant ...
Meanwhile, Killer was facing a dilemma. How far could he go in support of the mango Mussolini, Vlad the impaler and assorted sociopaths of the GOP kind?
It was tricky, but he did his best ...
Meanwhile, Killer was still tortured. How could he slip in a Vlad the Impaler talking point or two? After all, Tuckyo had been required to sit and suffer a mind-numbing lecture in ahistorical fantasy ... patience, Killer is always up to the job. It's not just fear of masks that is his speciality ...
Much more useful than the monster out from under the bed ...
What Tucker Carlson Saw When He Interviewed Vladimir Putin
More than anything else, Carlson seemed surprised: by the fact that he got to interview Putin in the Kremlin and even film himself sharing some post-interview impressions in a room full of lacquer and gold leaf; by what Putin said during the interview; and by the man himself. Putin used the interview to deliver a lengthy lecture on the history of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and its aftermath, meant to convince viewers that Ukraine never had a right to exist. When he was done with the lecture, he segued into a litany of grievances against the West, where several generations of Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Secretaries of State have, according to Putin, let him down or ghosted him. After the interview, an incredulous Carlson held up a gray cardboard folder with a little rope tie: Putin had given him copies of documents to back up his historical claims. Carlson hadn’t opened it yet. “I thought he was filibustering,” he said, still apparently reeling from the history lesson. “But I concluded after watching all this, no, that was the predicate to his answer: the history of the area and the formation of this country and the connection to Ukraine is part of the basis for his Ukraine policy.”
The content of Putin’s conversation with Carlson was barely distinguishable from the content of Putin’s rare speeches and so-called press conferences and hotlines—annual hours-long, highly orchestrated television productions. Putin’s obsession with history is genuine, as is his belief in a narrative that justifies, indeed makes inevitable, Russia’s war against Ukraine. That Carlson was surprised suggests that he either didn’t watch Putin’s earlier appearances in preparation for the interview, or that, despite copious evidence to the contrary, he imagined that Putin the man would match Putin the role: a dictator whose opponents get killed and jailed and who invades neighboring countries ought to be larger than life, terrifying in person, and certainly not boring.
Carlson emerged from the interview shaking his head. “Russia is not an expansionist power,” he said. “You’d have to be an idiot to think that.” Actually, you might look at the evidence—the invasion and de-facto control over about a fifth of Georgia in 2008, the annexation of Crimea in 2014, the continued occupation of about a fifth of Ukraine and the ongoing offensive there—to conclude that Russia is an expansionist power. During the interview, Putin gave every indication that he thinks of former imperial possessions as still rightfully Russia’s. That would include not only former Soviet republics but also Finland and Poland. “The professional liars in Washington . . . are trying to convince you that this guy is Hitler, that he is trying to take the Sudetenland, or something,” Carlson continued. “Not analogous in any way!” In fact, Putin had clearly, and more explicitly than ever before, channelled Hitler during the interview. This is what a tyrant looks like: small, and full of tedious resentments.
What Putin Saw When He Was Interviewed by Tucker Carlson
Here was an easy mark. Carlson meekly tried to interrupt Putin a couple of times, to ask a question he seemed stuck on: Why hadn’t all this history and these territorial issues come up when Putin first became President, in 2000? It was an ill-informed question—Putin has trafficked in historical revisionism from the start and became increasingly obsessed with Ukraine after the Orange Revolution, in 2004—and an easy one for Putin to ignore. It seemed to show that Carlson was less well briefed than Putin, who dropped biographical trivia about Carlson into the conversation, a trademark intimidation tactic of a K.G.B. agent. He mentioned, for example, that Carlson had unsuccessfully tried to join the C.I.A.
Carlson didn’t interrupt or challenge Putin on the many—too many to count—occasions when Putin told falsehoods about the history of Ukraine, the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the relationship between Russia and nato, probably his conversations with former U.S. leaders, and, perhaps most egregiously of all, the Russian Army’s withdrawal from the suburbs of Kyiv after a month of invasion in 2022. Putin claimed that this was a gesture of good will aimed at achieving a speedy negotiated peace; in fact, it was a military defeat. This would also have been a good moment for Carlson to ask Putin about the well-documented war crimes Russian soldiers allegedly committed during that month of occupation. He passed up this opportunity.
Most important from Putin’s point of view, Carlson seemed to share two of his basic assumptions: that the war in Ukraine is a proxy war with the United States and that any negotiations will take place between the Kremlin and the White House, presumably without involving Kyiv. Carlson even nudged Putin to call President Biden and say “Let’s work this out.” To which Putin responded that the message Russia wishes to convey to the U.S. is “Stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks.”
What Russian Television Viewers Saw
Putin has reprised his history lecture many times. It seems likely that most Russians who watched the entire interview did so out of professional obligation—their job, as propagandists or political appointees, is to amplify and affirm the leader’s message. Ordinary Russians probably watched only outtakes and commentary. What they saw was that something momentous had happened: one of the most popular journalists in America came to interview Putin and looked like a deer in headlights. Channel One stressed both Carlson’s popularity and Americans’ evident interest in what Putin had to say. Carlson’s promotional video in advance of the interview itself had been watched more than a hundred million times! Russians see Carlson, not unreasonably, as a representative of a future Trump Administration, a preview of the coming America in which the liberals who support Ukraine are finally displaced.
What Tucker Carlson’s Viewers Saw
It’s hard to imagine an American viewer who would make it past the first ten minutes of Putin’s monotonous history lecture. (In the interview, Putin called it one of his “dialogues,” betraying either his ignorance or his idea of what constitutes a dialogue; the Kremlin translated “dialogues” as “my long speeches.”) The translator or translators generally cleaned up Putin’s prose, smoothing out passages that, in Russian, made no sense. For example, responding to Carlson’s question about a possible invasion of Poland, Putin said, in Russian, “Because we don’t have any interests in Poland nor in Lithuania—nowhere. What do we need it for? We just don’t have any interests. Only threats.” The translator rendered it as, “Because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else. Why would we do that? We simply don’t have any interest. It’s just threat mongering.”
In another exchange, the translator took liberties to make Carlson appear more dignified. When Carlson asked Putin about his obsession with fighting Nazism eighty years after Hitler’s death, the President said, in Russian, “Your question seems subtle but is very disgusting.” In English, though, Putin appeared to be praising Carlson’s question as “subtle” while Carlson himself, according to the transcript, called the question “quite pesky”—the words were actually spoken by Putin’s translator. However obscure the subject of Putin’s discursive exercise was, the genre probably looked recognizable to Americans. This was a conversation between an older man who has read a history book and fancies himself an expert and his eager nephew, who is trying to feign knowledge in a subject he failed in college. Except one of these guys reaches millions of viewers and the other has nuclear weapons.
Up against their analysis, Killer looks like small beer - the pond understands some Victorians still call five ounces a pony - but he did allow one conspiracy theory at the end.
It's all NATO's fault, they forced Vlad the Impaler to invade Crimea, and take over portions of Ukraine ... what else could he do? He was helpless, hapless, compelled by a vast conspiracy that pretended Ukraine was a country in its own right ...
... and how reassuring it is to learn that the mango Mussolini is just a paper tiger, a toothless dragon, who won't do anything to rock the boat in a meaningful way.
Meanwhile, try being a ten year old trying to get an abortion to rid yourself of your rapist's unwanted child ....
Who could imagine a Supreme Court where the husband has an insurrectionist wife and takes lavish gifts, and thinks that's the way of the world?
Who could imagine such an incredibly corrupt SCOTUS? Why you'd almost think that voting had consequences ...
And now, there being no way to do a meaningful segue to the infallible Pope of the day, here it is at the end of the road ...
The Coalition “meticulously crafted” the stage three tax plan to wedge Labor by including some small benefits for middle income earners in a tax plan to massively benefit high income earners. It doesn’t matter how many metaphors Peta uses, it doesn’t disguise this basic fact.
ReplyDeleteBut Peta’s incompetent ministers jibe is just to to distract from the glaring incompetence of members of the Coalition with a former deputy PM who, yet again, has provided plenty of material for cartoonists with his “state of advanced refreshment” which can now be applied to the behaviour of the onion muncher and his supporters at the demolition party, following which he was unable to appear publicly until the afternoon, or Peta when she was caught driving while “in a state of advanced refreshment” as though she was just coming out from a dip in the ocean. It will probably be used in courts of law: “... my client was ‘in a state of advance refreshment’ when he collided with the other car and killed ...”.
"...it doesn’t disguise this basic fact". Anony, I reckon you just have no idea how ignorant, lazy and just plain stupid the human "race" is. It doesn't matter what metaphors anybody uses, it's all just how "thick" the audience is - and it's plenty thick.
DeleteOf course one reason that you’d need to use gelignite to remove Barnaby from Parliament is his lack of any other job prospects for a man with two families to support. It’s difficult to imagine any large corporations handing him a seat on the board - even Gina would probably be wary of anything more than some casual work in the accounting department. Sure he did a sterling job as a Drought Envoy while doing a stretch on the backbench - such a pity we never got to see the texts that constituted his reports - but his talents aren’t likely to be recognised by the mob of pinko city slicker’s currently occupying the Government benches. Even if he did have some sort of decent income, how would he usefully fill in his time? The poor bloke is in self-imposed exile from Tamworth, so he can’t even prop up the bar in McGuire’s, the Central or the Good Companions - though I suppose there are a few convivial watering holes in Armidale. No, there’s no alternative - Barnaby must stay!
ReplyDelete"...how would he usefully fill in his time?" Glass in hand, rapidly and frequently being emptied ?
DeleteYou might think that Dame Slap JD ("The Juris Doctor (JD) is a graduate entry professional law degree which includes study of all the required areas of knowledge for admission to practise law in Australia.") would be putting in the boot to those demonising asylum seekers who have served their time - 'once they have served their time, they are a free citizen with the same rights as everybody else ... dark days when a citizen is locked up on a politician's sayso..'.
ReplyDeleteMaybe she will produce it next week.
I'm pretty sure that ChatGPT couldn't do it, though, but maybe it could surprise me, like it did in https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/there-must-be-some-misunderstanding?publication_id=888615&post_id=141494487&isFreemail=true&r=wq44s
https://sydney.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma991008033479705106&context=L&vid=61USYD_INST:sydney&lang=en&search_scope=MyInst_and_CI&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=Everything&query=any,contains,The%20regulation%20of%20the%20fundraising%20process%20in%20Australia&offset=0
DeleteOk, Jack the Insipid: "...sought to move a procedural motion inferring that the debate in the previous evening was raucus and unparliamentary." Ok, now I'm not sure just how a procedural motion can "infer". I can see how it might "imply", or even just state outright, but not how it might "infer".
ReplyDeleteCan anybody explain for me why the meanings of "infer" and "imply" have been swapped ?
"...who else is up to raging about the dangers that windmills offer to the whales of Nundle?" And the birds ! All those poor birds slashed to death by those whizzing rotary blades ! Why does everybody ignore the birds ?
ReplyDeleteSo, KillerC: "...Germany's former world leading, now terminal, manufacturing industry." But if that's so, how has Germany just overtaken Japan to rise to the position of 3rd biggest economy in the world (after US and China) ?
ReplyDeleteJapan unexpectedly slips into recession, Germany now world's third-biggest economy
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/japan-unexpectedly-slips-into-recession-germany-now-worlds-third-biggest-economy/ar-BB1ijhiX
Oh, ok, it wasn't so much a German achievement as a Japanese failure. Though at least Germany still has some manufacturing industry, unlike Australia after nearly a decade of Coalition economic ideology.
In any case: "...the determination among Democrats in congress to send $US95bn to Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel (or more accurately to American arms manufactures)[sic]..." Does this mean that US arms manufacturers could go broke ? Who will defend us and US then ? But: "US taxpayers will be borrowing the lot at about 4.5 per cent interest...". And who exactly will they be "borrowing" it from ? Chinese moneylenders perhaps ?
"...the pond understands some Victorians still call five ounces a pony". Well of course it is. And some pubs still serve ponys, the one-time 'ladies glass', but I'm not sure to whom now.